Fair Criticism in the press

[Captain Holt 522]

13 hours ago, hogesar said:

Blubbing? You're the one who quoted me like a confused old man - did you want me to provide a tutorial on how to block me? I'll add pictures and everything 🤓

Don't worry mate, this forum is full of old sods who can't work out twitter. It's a time capsule of a different era.

[hogesar 9,673]

2 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Don't worry mate, this forum is full of old sods who can't work out twitter. It's a time capsule of a different era.

😂 Accurate.

[Segura 84]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this article.

I've bought a copy just in time for my morning constitutional.

[BigFish 1,987]

10 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

Webber sees the best way of making money is profit on players, again I don't see him being successful here with these recruits, but the better way was actually staying in this league. 

If we failed doing it the way the likes of Jordan suggests, THAT is what parachute payments are for, despite Chickens protestations. Simon Jordan stated this 2 weeks ago, and as he's ran a side that has both gained promotion then utilised the parachute payment system I suspect he has a better insight into the reasons for them being brought in than us.

This isn't really true, is it? The club isn't really looking to make money, you can see this in the accounts over the years. The club is looking to put out the best possible squad within its' means. Its' means are driven by the economic fundamentals that don't really change. The approach the club is taking is based on a category 1 academy & buying players players it can afford that have a possible value add.

Other approaches are available of course, and are also valid. Brentford scrapped their academy, Burnley adopted the journeyman approach and long ball football. But the simple fact is the club doesn't have enough cash to buy journeyman pros & maintain the development model. It is either/or.

When it comes to advice you may choose to take Simon Jordan's, you seem to think he knows what he is talking about. This couldn't possibly be the same Simon Jordan who led Palace into administration and was effectively kicked out, could it?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

No it's not. You are literally creating this argument to beat the club with.

Last season our club total wage bill was £55-65m. That included bonuses for gaining promotion to the Premier League. No way could we have covered that sort of wage bill without the parachute payments.

Nor could we have probably retained Buendia if financial constraints were tighter.

That isn't a reason to justify parachute payments is it. It just explains why we still paid high wages in the Championship. Without them we couldn't have done it is not, IMO, a reason to maintain them. 69 games, 42 points and 46 goals in the EPL in two seasons does not reflect on maintaining high wages in the Championship.

Or do we reflect that football is run that way nowadays? If so, lets stop moaning about the big clubs and just get on with it. If we believe in fairness then consider the other 69 clubs who get a mere pittance and very little for failure.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Captain Holt said:

Don't worry mate, this forum is full of old sods who can't work out twitter. It's a time capsule of a different era.

And there are many who cannot debate without getting rude to their elders😉

[Ekoku: The Ambassador Of The People 122]

Its the same rehashed tosh we hear every year we’re in the PL. Nothing new in there. Except he’s wrong this year in which we did spend big and has really bitten us in the a$$ this time. Again no mention of the likes of Bournemouth and QPR cheating FFP rules over the years. Unless he knows what Delia’s bank balance is and know’s something we don’t there’s not a great deal we as a club can do to compete financially. 

[hogesar 9,673]

21 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This isn't really true, is it? The club isn't really looking to make money, you can see this in the accounts over the years. The club is looking to put out the best possible squad within its' means. Its' means are driven by the economic fundamentals that don't really change. The approach the club is taking is based on a category 1 academy & buying players players it can afford that have a possible value add.

Other approaches are available of course, and are also valid. Brentford scrapped their academy, Burnley adopted the journeyman approach and long ball football. But the simple fact is the club doesn't have enough cash to buy journeyman pros & maintain the development model. It is either/or.

When it comes to advice you may choose to take Simon Jordan's, you seem to think he knows what he is talking about. This couldn't possibly be the same Simon Jordan who led Palace into administration and was effectively kicked out, could it?

Good post. Especially about Simon Jordan, who whilst interesting to listen to because of his experience, completely failed as an owner of a football club.

[tea total 79]

20 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Saw this on a Facebook thread. Not sure which paper it’s from but some good points made - sadly. The bit about out top signing cost versus what is needed stood out 

 

Would say that the Premier League and the people who don't want to bite the hand that feeds them are the problem...not us! We are a club who are caught up in the half way house that football has created. 

Let's get relegated then get promoted to really p"@s them off! It's greed, pure greed!

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Love how his tagline is "no-nonsense attitude". He's saved the nonsense for what he wrote.

[Badger 2,405]

17 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

But some posters need to take their heads out of Delia's Ares and try and put forward a reasoned argument other than its because we had to pay higher wages. Any fcukin different opinion to the usual suspects is treated as disloyalty and club bashing. The article is about justification. Our place in the EPL is justified and not in question to me. I just believe that parachute payments are unfair. Its our problem if we brought in failures like Sargent. So it does reward failure.

For a start, does anyone know or believe that our players will be on the same wages if we go down? Will there be smaller attendances? Maybe from the away sides. Is the price of a season ticket going down?

I'm not quite sure what your point is KG, but it is a bigger issue that just NCFC?

I think that there is a general zeitgeist against parachute payments as it distorts the championship, and certainly there is a case to be made. The danger is that abolishing parachute payments without some form of modifying action will make it even harder for newly promoted clubs to survive in the EPL. As it stands, promoted clubs our size have about a 1 in 3 chance in staying up in recent years: abolishing parachute payments will make this smaller.

It is to do with wages. All sensible EPL will have relegation reduction clauses but these are nowhere big enough to cover the huge drop in revenue. Our revenue without parachute payments will be iro 35 million - Watford's and Burnley's will be lower than this. Our wage bill last time in the Championship was £66.6 million (although this will include promotion bonuses) down from £89 million in the Premier League. If relegation means reducing wages from 90 million to 25 million in one go, it will be hugely disruptive.

It will also make it even harder for newly-promoted clubs to attract players. As it stands, newly-promoted clubs are bottom choice - in most cases, they get players only if more established clubs don't want them - why would you risk a a 30% or 40% reduction in wages if you had a choice? Ending parachute payments would involve a c75% reduction in wages which will make it harder still.

None of this justifies parachute payments if they distort competition in the Championship as statistics suggest they probably do, but we can't pretend that their abolition will not have any consequence on the competitiveness of the EPL. Serious consideration needs to be given to transitional arrangements if we wish to maintain promotion between the EFL and the EPL.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

23 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not quite sure what your point is KG, but it is a bigger issue that just NCFC?

I think that there is a general zeitgeist against parachute payments as it distorts the championship, and certainly there is a case to be made. The danger is that abolishing parachute payments without some form of modifying action will make it even harder for newly promoted clubs to survive in the EPL. As it stands, promoted clubs our size have about a 1 in 3 chance in staying up in recent years: abolishing parachute payments will make this smaller.

It is to do with wages. All sensible EPL will have relegation reduction clauses but these are nowhere big enough to cover the huge drop in revenue. Our revenue without parachute payments will be iro 35 million - Watford's and Burnley's will be lower than this. Our wage bill last time in the Championship was £66.6 million (although this will include promotion bonuses) down from £89 million in the Premier League. If relegation means reducing wages from 90 million to 25 million in one go, it will be hugely disruptive.

It will also make it even harder for newly-promoted clubs to attract players. As it stands, newly-promoted clubs are bottom choice - in most cases, they get players only if more established clubs don't want them - why would you risk a a 30% or 40% reduction in wages if you had a choice? Ending parachute payments would involve a c75% reduction in wages which will make it harder still.

None of this justifies parachute payments if they distort competition in the Championship as statistics suggest they probably do, but we can't pretend that their abolition will not have any consequence on the competitiveness of the EPL. Serious consideration needs to be given to transitional arrangements if we wish to maintain promotion between the EFL and the EPL.

My first post was to object to the article but I did add that personally I was against parachute payments because I thought they were unfair. One or two posters debated sensibly but then there was the usual suspects making the usual arguments of bashing the club.

Far from that I was trying to point out the unfairness on other clubs in the Championship. Imagine coming up from League One and facing us with our £40M spending ability. Maybe Sundeland can compete if they return to big attendances but Rotherham just have to get on with developing or finding talent that doesn't involve a big outlay.

Just the same argument that many make about the bigger clubs being unfair on clubs like us with their wealthy owners and TV money. That is just hypocritical.

And that is why many posters are unhappy with the way we perform in the EPL. While its proper to praise Webber and company when we win the Championship, its rightfully proper to moan at them when so many think we have wasted so much money this season. And, here's hoping, we have another successfully season next time, and players like Tzolis transform the team then the proof will not be next season but the next one in the EPL.

So my main thrust was that we either accept that football isn't fair and take what we can get, I can accept that but don't be hypocritical because Villa bought Buendia off us.

And I wish some posters would also accept criticism of the club without resort to accusations. That eventually make me lose my rag and post things I regret when I cool down.

 

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Just the same argument that many make about the bigger clubs being unfair on clubs like us with their wealthy owners and TV money. That is just hypocritical.

Thanks KG - I have only highlighted a small piece purely to save space😃

I agree that parachute payments are a problem; but think that the absence of them will intensify another. To keep the EPL even slightly worth being promoted too, there needs to be some form of transitional arrangement otherwise every promoted team will be relegated unless they risk administration.

For my own part, I don't want or expect a "perfectly competitive" system like we have in US franchise sport for TV systems, similar to the ones KC argues for. I have waffled on for ages about history/ community/ fan base being the determinants for financial success and probable sporting advantage. If Arsenal attract 60,000 and we only attract 25,000, I expect them to do better than us and don't have an issue with it. I have less sympathy for very rich individuals buying small clubs and buying success a la Bournemouth but it doesn't worry me that much and I wouldn't object to a multi-billionaire owner for City either - not that it's likely😄.

I don't have much of an issue with taking the Sky TV money either - it doesn't really make that much difference to us - if Sky TV ended tomorrow, we would be the same or slightly better off without it in the competitive hierarchy. However, not to take it when everybody else does would be plainly silly.

The two things that annoy me most are clubs running up ridiculous debt and then going into administration and ripping off local businesses and the tax payer + people who think that there is a long queue of multi-billionaires queueing up to give us hundreds of millions.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

23 hours ago, alex_ncfc said:

Because we don't take it seriously unlike literally any other club that gets promoted from the Championship. We don't look to build anything, if we did, we wouldn't be looking even worse with every attempt - 2019-20 was worse than 2015-16, and 2021-22 is worse than 2019-20. We're "just happy to be there" 🙄

Does that mean the two clubs that will come down with us did not take it seriously?...........

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

12 minutes ago, Badger said:

Thanks KG - I have only highlighted a small piece purely to save space😃

I agree that parachute payments are a problem; but think that the absence of them will intensify another. To keep the EPL even slightly worth being promoted too, there needs to be some form of transitional arrangement otherwise every promoted team will be relegated unless they risk administration.

For my own part, I don't want or expect a "perfectly competitive" system like we have in US franchise sport for TV systems, similar to the ones KC argues for. I have waffled on for ages about history/ community/ fan base being the determinants for financial success and probable sporting advantage. If Arsenal attract 60,000 and we only attract 25,000, I expect them to do better than us and don't have an issue with it. I have less sympathy for very rich individuals buying small clubs and buying success a la Bournemouth but it doesn't worry me that much and I wouldn't object to a multi-billionaire owner for City either - not that it's likely😄.

I don't have much of an issue with taking the Sky TV money either - it doesn't really make that much difference to us - if Sky TV ended tomorrow, we would be the same or slightly better off without it in the competitive hierarchy. However, not to take it when everybody else does would be plainly silly.

The two things that annoy me most are clubs running up ridiculous debt and then going into administration and ripping off local businesses and the tax payer + people who think that there is a long queue of multi-billionaires queueing up to give us hundreds of millions.

All good points Badger.

Sky has been a blessing for football followers. Its coverage is excellent and relatively cheap. And the ability for us to watch the type of games we had yesterday afternoon, one close to our hearts and the second showing the two best teams trying to steal a march on each other, was worth the money.

When we were relegated to League One I had some brilliant days out going to smaller, less developed grounds with, I loathe to say genuine supporters but it fits clubs like Paulton Rovers. Going to manicured stadia is not my favourite occupation. Many may think I'm off my rocker but I like simplicity. And clubs like that try and raise money by having meat raffles and weekly draws rather than trying to tempt someone who may well be laundering their money through football. And they do not go into debt for anything.

Of course we will never really replicate systems as they have in the US because of their college system which produces most of their sports elites.

It is strange that the lower the level in the pyramid, the harsher it becomes on clubs and fit for purpose grounds etc. Truro City can never get to the National League unless a new stadium is built or they use Torquay's ground. Yet Bournemouth have been in and are likely to return to, the EPL with an awful ground which isn't fit for that league while spending big on players. Yet the parachute payments have made it possible for them to keep players and hire a top manager. And no doubt they will spend any money on players while others without payments put their money into ground improvements first.

As far as I am concerned, the problem of us getting relegated and having players on large contracts is our problem and no-one elses. If we cannot sustain EPL membership then quite frankly, we aren't good enough, not just in player ability but in day to day running.

Many supporteers have shown a desire for a ground expansion or even a new purpose built one. But we, like Bournemouth have taken the elastoplast option of getting to the top division as the main priority. Yet two of our stands were paid for by grants or insurance and one by the sale of a player. The River End is over 40 years old.

Anyway, its just my opinion and something I enjoy debating.

[Badger 2,405]

26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As far as I am concerned, the problem of us getting relegated and having players on large contracts is our problem and no-one elses. If we cannot sustain EPL membership then quite frankly, we aren't good enough, not just in player ability but in day to day running.

It is our problem however, it is not just our problem. it is increasingly hard to stay up and this will impact upon all clubs that get promoted to the EPL. It will mean that clubs won't want to get promoted and that the games with promoted clubs will become increasingly meaningless as none will stay up. In time, this will create an EPL without promotion/ relegation to it and the structure of English football will be irrevocably changed.

Perhaps this would be a good thing, but if this is the case, it should be something that is consciously aimed for, rather than an unintended consequence of an ill thought-through decision.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

Contracts have been negotiated based on what we can afford, allowing for the possibility of relegation, and the money we can budget for.  Which includes parachute payments, obv.

 

Also I find it weird when people say that parachute payments distort the championship.  Well, that's the intention - to cushion things for relegated teams and give them an advantage.

 

I would prefer it if the finances of football weren't so skewed towards the top teams.  But, the reality is that most money comes into football from TV, and the TV companies are only really interested in the Prem.  Just remember the ITV digital fiasco, which paid a decent amount for 2nd tier football and went bust because there weren't enough punters willing to stump up to watch it.

 

The debate on this thread is all about football finances in general, there's nothing being said that's relevant to City in particular.  Also, getting relegated straight back down to the Champs after 1 season in the Prem is nothing to do with the parachute payments and is largely down to the player recruitment decisions made by the club and not having a fairy godfather willing to splash out huge amounts of cash to allow the club to overrcome the fraction of transfer decisions that inevitable don't come off.  I never understand why having some billionaire willing to throw money around on a football club is viewed as morally a "good" thing.

[komakino 272]

Parachute payments should have been scrapped a long time ago as they reward failure. I've never ever seen the point of them as they defy any form of logic. Arguably there should be more money than there currently is for those that do better in The Championship, but the top tier is what most people want to watch, so the second tier will always be the very poor relation. 

Norwich City's business model relies heavily upon them as it takes money from the league the majority shareholders distrust. If that tap is turned off, the delusional self funding model will be in tatters with Delia's goose will be well and truly cooked. 

I can easily see why pundits and fans from other clubs criticise us as we wave the white flag before the start of the season. If we can only afford a £20M net spend before the start of a season, then the club is not appropriately funded which is what happens when you have owners that do not invest or attract outside investment. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by komakino

[chicken 2,624]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

That isn't a reason to justify parachute payments is it. It just explains why we still paid high wages in the Championship. Without them we couldn't have done it is not, IMO, a reason to maintain them. 69 games, 42 points and 46 goals in the EPL in two seasons does not reflect on maintaining high wages in the Championship.

Or do we reflect that football is run that way nowadays? If so, lets stop moaning about the big clubs and just get on with it. If we believe in fairness then consider the other 69 clubs who get a mere pittance and very little for failure.

Which is it to be then big K?

On the one hand people are arguing that the parachute payments are to ensure clubs don't go bust with a big wage bill after relegation, on the other hand you are arguing that isn't what parachute payments are for!

I'd love for the chorus of bashers to actually agree what they are for and how we are supposedly "abusing"  the system. I'd also love to see why we are abusing the system more than say Fulham, West Brom, Watford, Wolves, Villa, Newcastle etc. Lets not forget, Watford have a £30m player on their books who stayed with them through relegation, same with Mitrovich at Fulham, Grealish at Villa, the Newcastle squad when they were relegated...

As I mentioned, whether or not you agree. Parachute payments were brought in for that exact reason, to help teams that get relegated from going bust and to ensure they are able to be competitive by being able to attract better players to their squad without fear that relegation would cost them their club.

Whether you like that or not, whether you see that as "rewarding failure" is immaterial and irrelevant.

All clubs have the ability to sell off the expensively waged players to reduce the wage bill and to use the parachute payments to replace them with cheaper waged players... equally, I don't see that as an issue. At the end of the day, the money is there to ensure clubs are able to avoid going to the wall. Shifting players on to ensure long term stability is a natural part of football. Contracts not extended, cheap sale prices to encourage teams to come in and pay the higher wages for a player etc. All part and parcel of every season for every club in the football pyramid in the world. 

[chicken 2,624]

6 minutes ago, komakino said:

Parachute payments should have been scrapped a long time ago as they reward failure. I've never ever seen the point of them as they defy any form of logic. Arguably there should be more money than there currently is for those that do better in The Championship, but the top tier is what most people want to watch, so the second tier will always be the very poor relation. 

Norwich City's business model relies heavily upon them as it takes money from the league the majority shareholders distrust. If that tap is turned off, the delusional self funding model will be in tatters with Delia's goose will be well and truly cooked. 

I can easily see why pundits and fans from other clubs criticise us as we wave the white flag before the start of the season. If we can only afford a £20M net spend before the start of a season, then the club is not appropriately funded which is what happens when you have owners that do not invest or attract outside investment. 

If you take a look at the new FFP thread you may wish to reconsider that statement. Norwich, as pointed out by a fair number of much more well informed and of better balanced viewpoints, are in a much better position because of their self funding model than many other clubs.

And here's the funny thing. Our current model isn't reliant upon parachute payments. Yes, if they are received for gaining promotion they will be factored in. People seem to forget that this model was initiated half way through a season that ended with the necessity of selling Maddison and one of the Murphy's followed by the other Murphy and Pritchard the following season. Much to the lament of a vocal minority on here, we then signed "useless players from the German 2nd/3rd tiers".

Do we wonder why that was? No, of course not. They were cheaper in purchase price and in wages. We had to cut our cloth accordingly. That is what is meant by a self funding model, we find the funds within our means or through our success. More often than not, a bit of both.

You may well say parachute payments are "rewarding failure", others will say that you don't get them without gaining promotion and are therefore a "reward", prize money in fact. What if instead of parachute payments they just gave clubs more money in the premier league? Instead of having about £130-40m over three-four seasons a club just gets £120m for promotion, say. Would you question that? Would that be unfair? Rewarding failure?

Or is it just because it is structured the way it is you see it as that?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Which is it to be then big K?

On the one hand people are arguing that the parachute payments are to ensure clubs don't go bust with a big wage bill after relegation, on the other hand you are arguing that isn't what parachute payments are for!

I'd love for the chorus of bashers to actually agree what they are for and how we are supposedly "abusing"  the system. I'd also love to see why we are abusing the system more than say Fulham, West Brom, Watford, Wolves, Villa, Newcastle etc. Lets not forget, Watford have a £30m player on their books who stayed with them through relegation, same with Mitrovich at Fulham, Grealish at Villa, the Newcastle squad when they were relegated...

As I mentioned, whether or not you agree. Parachute payments were brought in for that exact reason, to help teams that get relegated from going bust and to ensure they are able to be competitive by being able to attract better players to their squad without fear that relegation would cost them their club.

Whether you like that or not, whether you see that as "rewarding failure" is immaterial and irrelevant.

All clubs have the ability to sell off the expensively waged players to reduce the wage bill and to use the parachute payments to replace them with cheaper waged players... equally, I don't see that as an issue. At the end of the day, the money is there to ensure clubs are able to avoid going to the wall. Shifting players on to ensure long term stability is a natural part of football. Contracts not extended, cheap sale prices to encourage teams to come in and pay the higher wages for a player etc. All part and parcel of every season for every club in the football pyramid in the world. 

Get the idea out of your head that it is bashing. Read my first post and it is my point of view and I have put forward reasonable arguments as to why I think so. Some of you think you are the only ones who love the club.

I haven't accused the club of abuse. How cannot it be when it is quite clearly set up for relegated clubs from the EPL to get at least £75M if they do not return straightaway. That we accept that money is not a problem either. That doesn't stop me from believing its morally wrong.

Its to help clubs from going bust. What a ridiculous idea that clubs should spend more than they have got and need help when they fail in that dream to stay in the EPL. And certainly for a club that boasts it is run so well on a self financing model.

Many continually moan about the big clubs having all the advantages and putting themselves first but do nothing to stop Bury from going bust. And why did they go bust? Because their owner spent more than they were getting in. And that was after they were promoted. As has been said many time, football clubs are virtually all private enterprises. Yet they are not run like normal companies where the main effort is to maximise profits. They are run to maximise success on the field.

 

[chicken 2,624]

14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Get the idea out of your head that it is bashing. 

Apologies, but you can surely see how expressing you think it is wrong and rewarding failure that others will see that as a reflection upon our club, especially when responding to such a cr@p piece of journalism as this. It suggests our club is wrong and doesn't deserve what it has earned in getting to the Premier League.
 

16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Some of you think you are the only ones who love the club.

Not at all. I just find it strange that some call "love" a constant push to find something, like this article, which they can use to rubbish our club. How we're doing something wrong, how we don't get things right... and the lengths that some people will go to, to have this confirmed in some strange way. Especially when many of that slant tend to be incredibly uninformed and lacking in the broader picture of the situation. Note, I am not reflecting on you here specifically, but the likes of the OP who constantly snipe at the club and celebrate such an article as "the truth" with evangelism the deep south USA would be proud of. 
 

19 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

How cannot it be when it is quite clearly set up for relegated clubs from the EPL to get at least £75M if they do not return straightaway. That we accept that money is not a problem either. That doesn't stop me from believing its morally wrong.

Spread over three seasons in diminishing amounts. Rather than 100 to zero in a summer. As for morally wrong. That's questionable in it's own right. This isn't a "bonus". It's not like the CEO of a bank that has been rescued by the state still getting a £2m bonus. The morals behind the existence of parachute payments are undeniably good. Otherwise in the space of about four to five seasons, you really would only have the sustainable models managing to compete and more clubs crashing and burning and facing double relegations. Now sure, some may feel that is a "fairer" model. Realistically though, it would actually be punishing teams for wanting to try and compete in the premier league.

The result would be far more yo-yo-ing not less. As teams would be promoted, see their top players cherry picked as they couldn't, at least commit to offer competitive wages upon promotion. Whilst at the same time not being able to attract top tier footballers from other nations. Instead, newly promoted teams would likely have to source players from the same types of places they had done in league one and the championship meaning far more straight ups and then downs. Again, any successful signing more or less guaranteed to leave at the end of the season should an offer of better wages come in.

It would solidify the dominance of EPL teams, even mid-table sides. I suspect it may even see more release clauses benefitting players and even more shorter term contracts.

I don't subscribe to money ever being the problem. That's typically from a religious moral stance. Last time I was asked that question it was by a Jehovah's Witness who was standing about three feet in front of his Thai bride. One needs to separate the intent of such systems in life and whether or not they were well intended, then one needs to consider whether such a system is being used, not as intended and not in the spirit of those original intentions. And if so, what could be done to bring them back in line. The new FFP rules may well do that.

If you asked me that in the first instance I would have to say that I believe football is corrupt. It's an incredibly wealthy persons play thing. There are all kinds of strange goings on. And many, many, many morally questionable activities that should be questioned. The parachute system is pretty far down that list if even on it tbh. It's trying to fix a situation. That situation is caused by the Premier League.

It's not hard to see what I mean by this, it only takes a cursory glance at the world of politics to see this massive debate about Non Doms kicking off. Yet how many of the mega wealthy owners of clubs in the English top two divisions at least are Non Doms? How many will do whatever they can to maximise their own profit Vs risk to the club they own? - see the Glaziers at Man Utd. How many will risk breaking rules to gain promotion to the degree of failing to stay there would break them even with parachute payments? - see Villa, see Bournemouth breaking FFP to gain promotion and be fined a measly amount.
 

34 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its to help clubs from going bust. What a ridiculous idea that clubs should spend more than they have got and need help when they fail in that dream to stay in the EPL. And certainly for a club that boasts it is run so well on a self financing model.

The missing piece here is that the parachute payments exist and therefore our club models it's forward projections on receiving them. Therefore it is part of the self financing model. Just the same as the money we receive for being in the premier league is. That we have utilised it to successive bounce backs actually just evidences this. That is despite being a club with one of the poorest sets of owners in the top two divisions of English football. 

And this is also where your "I'm not bashing the club" comes back. You are effectively stating here that the club is not a self financing model, and therefore is either failing at being one, or lying about being one, because you don't think parachute payments should be factored into "self sustaining models". 

As for Bury... I would throw that one in with Wigan and a good number of other clubs over recent years where the "fit and proper" tests supposedly used to ensure such owners are competent enough to run a club are really any good at all. I recently added Abramovic to this section in my files as lets be honest, the suggestion is he has been aiding and abetting Putin by cleaning Russian money. Essentially using Chelsea as one of the biggest 'fronts' I can remember hearing of. To the tune of billions of £'s.

Again, I will ask. Why Norwich? Why is Norwich so bad for doing exactly what the parachute payments were intended for - just very well, such a bad thing when there are much more important discussions here? Fulham are infinitely more guilty of whatever it is you think Norwich are guilty of. If it is such a question of morals, is it ok for other clubs to do the same and not be held up as immoral but if we do it, even to a lesser extent, we are?

The examples of Bury, and to a lesser extent, Wigan are massive deals. Absolutely huge footballing issues. Completely unrelated to parachute payments, and deserving of being more than a footnote to a debate about them. Why is this still not a bigger issue in football.

Abramovic - more than just him, how many other clubs are run by people, or have been run by people, who like him have used them to help clean money gained in unscrupulous ways? How many of those people sailed through fit and proper checks? How many had intelligence on them that suggested they were up to no good? IMHO there is much, much more to this but it won't be blown open as it would shake the premier league to it's core. And it's too big of a cash cow. But again, nothing to do with parachute payments.





 

[BigFish 1,987]

3 hours ago, komakino said:

Norwich City's business model relies heavily upon them as it takes money from the league the majority shareholders distrust. If that tap is turned off, the delusional self funding model will be in tatters with Delia's goose will be well and truly cooked. 

I can easily see why pundits and fans from other clubs criticise us as we wave the white flag before the start of the season. If we can only afford a £20M net spend before the start of a season, then the club is not appropriately funded which is what happens when you have owners that do not invest or attract outside investment. 

Sigh.

I don't really know how many times you need to have it explained to you before you get it, that it is not investment if the model is for the club's planned expenditure to be higher than the club's expected revenues.

It is also delusional if you think, or is it hope, that turning off the parachute payments will destroy the self funding model. All that will happen is the club's playing budget will be further reduced. That would be the same for the other relegated clubs so it might not even reduce the clubs competiveness in the chumps

 

[komakino 272]

19 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Sigh.

I don't really know how many times you need to have it explained to you before you get it, that it is not investment if the model is for the club's planned expenditure to be higher than the club's expected revenues.

It is also delusional if you think, or is it hope, that turning off the parachute payments will destroy the self funding model. All that will happen is the club's playing budget will be further reduced. That would be the same for the other relegated clubs so it might not even reduce the clubs competiveness in the chumps

 

I think you are severely underplaying the lack of parachute money. 

Of course the club would have to cut its cloth even further, making it even less attractive and less competitive. That in turn would escalate even further to show how ridiculous it is to have owners that do not invest or attract outside investment and expect to be thanked for it. 

 

[horsefly 4,300]

Any decent journalist would turn his attention to the moral and financial cesspit that the PL has become, and which has destroyed the Pl as a footballing competition for all but those few teams funded by super-rich human rights offenders and crooks. Have Newcastle shown genuine "ambition" by bagging a wealthy owner infamous for murder? That so-called football commentators/journalists should criticise NCFC for attempting to run itself on a self-funding model shows just how utterly morally perverse the PL has become. Ask the fans of Bolton, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Derby, Charlton etc, etc, what they think about the claim that footballing ambition is proportional to money lashed out on players. The ridiculous idea that footballing ambition is relative to the amount of money a club spends is a model that would imperil the overwhelming majority of clubs that exist across our leagues. What we need are journalists brave enough to point out the insanity of such a business model, not sycophants cosying up to the oligarchs sports washing their criminality and dodgy practices.

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, komakino said:

I think you are severely underplaying the lack of parachute money. 

Of course the club would have to cut its cloth even further, making it even less attractive and less competitive. That in turn would escalate even further to show how ridiculous it is to have owners that do not invest or attract outside investment and expect to be thanked for it. 

The ending of the parachute payments is likely to come at the same time as FFP regulations change so that clubs are limited to 70% of turnover for their wage bill and amortisation (transfers).

Having a multi-billionaire will make hardly any difference as they won't be able to subsidise the playing side.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Apologies, but you can surely see how expressing you think it is wrong and rewarding failure that others will see that as a reflection upon our club, especially when responding to such a cr@p piece of journalism as this. It suggests our club is wrong and doesn't deserve what it has earned in getting to the Premier League.
 

Not at all. I just find it strange that some call "love" a constant push to find something, like this article, which they can use to rubbish our club. How we're doing something wrong, how we don't get things right... and the lengths that some people will go to, to have this confirmed in some strange way. Especially when many of that slant tend to be incredibly uninformed and lacking in the broader picture of the situation. Note, I am not reflecting on you here specifically, but the likes of the OP who constantly snipe at the club and celebrate such an article as "the truth" with evangelism the deep south USA would be proud of. 
 

Spread over three seasons in diminishing amounts. Rather than 100 to zero in a summer. As for morally wrong. That's questionable in it's own right. This isn't a "bonus". It's not like the CEO of a bank that has been rescued by the state still getting a £2m bonus. The morals behind the existence of parachute payments are undeniably good. Otherwise in the space of about four to five seasons, you really would only have the sustainable models managing to compete and more clubs crashing and burning and facing double relegations. Now sure, some may feel that is a "fairer" model. Realistically though, it would actually be punishing teams for wanting to try and compete in the premier league.

The result would be far more yo-yo-ing not less. As teams would be promoted, see their top players cherry picked as they couldn't, at least commit to offer competitive wages upon promotion. Whilst at the same time not being able to attract top tier footballers from other nations. Instead, newly promoted teams would likely have to source players from the same types of places they had done in league one and the championship meaning far more straight ups and then downs. Again, any successful signing more or less guaranteed to leave at the end of the season should an offer of better wages come in.

It would solidify the dominance of EPL teams, even mid-table sides. I suspect it may even see more release clauses benefitting players and even more shorter term contracts.

I don't subscribe to money ever being the problem. That's typically from a religious moral stance. Last time I was asked that question it was by a Jehovah's Witness who was standing about three feet in front of his Thai bride. One needs to separate the intent of such systems in life and whether or not they were well intended, then one needs to consider whether such a system is being used, not as intended and not in the spirit of those original intentions. And if so, what could be done to bring them back in line. The new FFP rules may well do that.

If you asked me that in the first instance I would have to say that I believe football is corrupt. It's an incredibly wealthy persons play thing. There are all kinds of strange goings on. And many, many, many morally questionable activities that should be questioned. The parachute system is pretty far down that list if even on it tbh. It's trying to fix a situation. That situation is caused by the Premier League.

It's not hard to see what I mean by this, it only takes a cursory glance at the world of politics to see this massive debate about Non Doms kicking off. Yet how many of the mega wealthy owners of clubs in the English top two divisions at least are Non Doms? How many will do whatever they can to maximise their own profit Vs risk to the club they own? - see the Glaziers at Man Utd. How many will risk breaking rules to gain promotion to the degree of failing to stay there would break them even with parachute payments? - see Villa, see Bournemouth breaking FFP to gain promotion and be fined a measly amount.
 

The missing piece here is that the parachute payments exist and therefore our club models it's forward projections on receiving them. Therefore it is part of the self financing model. Just the same as the money we receive for being in the premier league is. That we have utilised it to successive bounce backs actually just evidences this. That is despite being a club with one of the poorest sets of owners in the top two divisions of English football. 

And this is also where your "I'm not bashing the club" comes back. You are effectively stating here that the club is not a self financing model, and therefore is either failing at being one, or lying about being one, because you don't think parachute payments should be factored into "self sustaining models". 

As for Bury... I would throw that one in with Wigan and a good number of other clubs over recent years where the "fit and proper" tests supposedly used to ensure such owners are competent enough to run a club are really any good at all. I recently added Abramovic to this section in my files as lets be honest, the suggestion is he has been aiding and abetting Putin by cleaning Russian money. Essentially using Chelsea as one of the biggest 'fronts' I can remember hearing of. To the tune of billions of £'s.

Again, I will ask. Why Norwich? Why is Norwich so bad for doing exactly what the parachute payments were intended for - just very well, such a bad thing when there are much more important discussions here? Fulham are infinitely more guilty of whatever it is you think Norwich are guilty of. If it is such a question of morals, is it ok for other clubs to do the same and not be held up as immoral but if we do it, even to a lesser extent, we are?

The examples of Bury, and to a lesser extent, Wigan are massive deals. Absolutely huge footballing issues. Completely unrelated to parachute payments, and deserving of being more than a footnote to a debate about them. Why is this still not a bigger issue in football.

Abramovic - more than just him, how many other clubs are run by people, or have been run by people, who like him have used them to help clean money gained in unscrupulous ways? How many of those people sailed through fit and proper checks? How many had intelligence on them that suggested they were up to no good? IMHO there is much, much more to this but it won't be blown open as it would shake the premier league to it's core. And it's too big of a cash cow. But again, nothing to do with parachute payments.





 

Once again, I didn't agree with the article. And they do not normally bother me at all. What a journalist writes about us has no effect whether positive or negative. But I responded because of the parachute payment argument, which is now well documented. But I didn't take offense at what was written and think it was unfair. It was an unbiased opinion at about us over recent seasons. And I would wager the journalist is not alone in the opinions he has.

I have debated this factoring in before. I can see the argument but personally still disagree that it fits the self financing model. Its more like a mark II model to me. What came first, the model or the payments argument

The EPL/EFL due diligence in researching and accepting owners is obscene. In Bury's case, the attendances and possible income should not have caused their downfall. But excesses by the previous owner and the liar who was the second owner makes me question what the governance is in football.

We can all agree about Abramovich but lets not forget that Matthew Harding had spent a lot of his money when Chairman at Chelsea before his tragic death. Even Newcastle in the 80s with Hall, were more concerned with success than running the club properly. And Jack Walker bought the title for Blackburn supporters.

We all love our club and I am in no way slighting it or the directors. But I am not one to not disagree with something or someone if i think different.

And as you say, the Bury issue needs real debate at the highest level of Football. I often refer to Gary Neville buying Salford with his mates and allowing Bury, with a stand named after his Dad, to go under.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

6 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

My first post was to object to the article but I did add that personally I was against parachute payments because I thought they were unfair. One or two posters debated sensibly but then there was the usual suspects making the usual arguments of bashing the club.

Far from that I was trying to point out the unfairness on other clubs in the Championship. Imagine coming up from League One and facing us with our £40M spending ability. Maybe Sundeland can compete if they return to big attendances but Rotherham just have to get on with developing or finding talent that doesn't involve a big outlay.

Just the same argument that many make about the bigger clubs being unfair on clubs like us with their wealthy owners and TV money. That is just hypocritical.

And that is why many posters are unhappy with the way we perform in the EPL. While its proper to praise Webber and company when we win the Championship, its rightfully proper to moan at them when so many think we have wasted so much money this season. And, here's hoping, we have another successfully season next time, and players like Tzolis transform the team then the proof will not be next season but the next one in the EPL.

So my main thrust was that we either accept that football isn't fair and take what we can get, I can accept that but don't be hypocritical because Villa bought Buendia off us.

And I wish some posters would also accept criticism of the club without resort to accusations. That eventually make me lose my rag and post things I regret when I cool down.

 

So it seems to me that the whole shetshow is unfair including TV money and distribution. I'd be happy to go with that as it's always been my view. But those who single out parachute payments as unfair are probably bashing our club. But if it wasn't parachute payments it would be something else.

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

My first post was to object to the article but I did add that personally I was against parachute payments because I thought they were unfair. One or two posters debated sensibly but then there was the usual suspects making the usual arguments of bashing the club.

Far from that I was trying to point out the unfairness on other clubs in the Championship. Imagine coming up from League One and facing us with our £40M spending ability. Maybe Sundeland can compete if they return to big attendances but Rotherham just have to get on with developing or finding talent that doesn't involve a big outlay.

Just the same argument that many make about the bigger clubs being unfair on clubs like us with their wealthy owners and TV money. That is just hypocritical.

And that is why many posters are unhappy with the way we perform in the EPL. While its proper to praise Webber and company when we win the Championship, its rightfully proper to moan at them when so many think we have wasted so much money this season. And, here's hoping, we have another successfully season next time, and players like Tzolis transform the team then the proof will not be next season but the next one in the EPL.

So my main thrust was that we either accept that football isn't fair and take what we can get, I can accept that but don't be hypocritical because Villa bought Buendia off us.

And I wish some posters would also accept criticism of the club without resort to accusations. That eventually make me lose my rag and post things I regret when I cool down.

 

Delia is untouchable to some, it’s just the way it is. 

 

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have debated this factoring in before. I can see the argument but personally still disagree that it fits the self financing model. Its more like a mark II model to me. What came first, the model or the payments argument

You see, this is incredibly broken logic to me.

The parachute payments were there years before Webber rocked up, therefore when he talks about the self-financing model it clearly includes any and all funds gained from being promoted. As it does adjusting to being relegated.

It's a bit like saying someone self employed follows a self funding model but claiming tax back shouldn't be part of the model.

The model is based upon the environment it operates in. It takes into account all monies earned and all monies lost. Now, if you want to slant it as being rewarded for failure, that's fine, that's opinion. Holding to a belief that it's immoral is also fine. But a self financing model doesn't count as being self financing because it uses and relies upon money gained through promotion is more than a tad bizarre.

Like I said, say they get rid of parachute payments and instead give more money to premier league clubs. Say it means promotion is worth £110m for each season a club is there. How would you see that as being any different? Instead of breaking the money down, you just get more. But it isn't parachute payments anymore, it's just one lump sum. Prize money?

It's no longer money for failure. Then it can't be immoral. And it fits your criteria of self funding? 

See how bizarre that is? You're happy to take the premier league money, just not the season after you've been in it.